Okay, no one has posted on this, so I'm going to start it off.

My thoughts were twofold: I didn't buy the evidence General Powell presented about Iraq's successes in concealing these weapons and the mobile factories. It was circumstantial at best. In fact, what I wanted to know was WHY the U.S. didn't just alert the inspectors when our satellites were picking up either the skullduggery of the Republican Guard in moving around these units, or the phone conversations??? If we had the intelligence, why not use it to CONVICT Saddam, which would then give Bush the green light to march in? All any of the inspectors would need to find is ONE of those mobile biowarfare units, or even traces; does anyone think most of the world wouldn't IMMEDIATELY say, okay, Bush was right, take that jerk out right now? I conclude that we still don't have enough evidence, and what Powell presented wouldn't stand up in our U.S. courts. He was very earnest, though, and I believe he now believes this stuff, but I also think he's being used.

(BTW, his holding that anthrax vial was quite butch, but also a bit theatrical too. He doesn't get as emotional and flip as Donald Rumsfeld, though.)

Now (deep liberal breath)--I have to admit that I DID buy the evidence he presented about Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda operative who's now in Baghdad. The question is this: while Powell did convincingly link Al-Zarqawi to the murderers of Lawrence Foley and to the Al Qaeda cell operating in a no-man's land in northeastern Iraq, he didn't link him to Saddam! Yes, he's in Baghdad, so Saddam must know what he's up to, right? That seemed to be the argument. Saddam, to cover his ass, will probably slay him like he did Abu Nidal (and call it suicide or whatever)? Not that this would stop the war, but I have to say it would be wonderful if Saddam would do some of our work for us, since Al-Zarqawi has also been linked to Al-Qaeda cells in Turkey, Syria, and Palestine.

Finally, the NY Times is claiming that a key piece of evidence, support by a member of the Qatari royal family for Al Qaeda, was not mentioned since Qatar has signed on vigorously for the possible war. This Qatari noble may have even shielded one of the chief architects of 9/11 attacks as we were hunting for him. One thing that HAS TO HAPPEN is that our "allies" in the Muslim world must do a better job in addressing those in their midst who are aiding and abetting those that seek to destroy us. We know Saddam, like the Iranian clerics, is a problem, but our "friends" are doing this too, and it cannot continue.

"Colin Powell proved yesterday that Saddam Hussein is a bad man. But he didn't prove that the American war against Iraq is a good idea."

-- James Pinkerton (who I've read before, and he can fairly be described as a neo-conservative)

Quite frankly, I don't know what to think about the presentation (which I only heared second-hand through the paper). The photographic evidence might be compelling, but we are still relying on the Administration's word that it represents what they say it represents. Our European allies are down-playing the Al-Quaida link(s), and they were the first to investigate those.

It still comes down to - is Saddam such a threat that we (either the US or the UN) should violate the sovreignty of another country and pre-emptively strike. The US has never done that in the past, and I would hate to see a precedent set that could lead to still more wars in the future.

The Bush administration appears to be framing the question then selectively presenting the evidence to support what for them is a foregone conclusion.

This is not "thinking properly" as Nelson Mandela put might have put it.

We need to know whether the evidence supports the neccesity to go to war and when . That is a judgement that should be left up to more than one individual, and must be based on knowledge of the facts.

Noone, not even the president, should be allowed to make that decision alone under the current circumstances in my opinion.

If we were under imminent threat, which I do not believe we are, that would change.

For now we need more evidence, more inspections, more level-headed thinking and actions.

President Bush is assumed to be a prsident with a good business background. Though I consider that debatable it may be what is needed right now. A decent cost-benefit analysis would probably argue against war if all of the consequences could be accurately calculated.

The lives lost either way may not be calculable in quantity or value.

We may be about to take a tremendous risk.

[ February 06, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

John McCain urged yesterday that we also take more seriously the threat from North Korea. Not only are they brazenly restarting their nuclear reactor, but they actually THREATENED A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE!!! I mean, how much more do we need to hear from these wackos? North Korea HAS at least 1 or 2 nuclear warheads AND it has biological and chemical weapons, AND it could destroy several nearby population centers of more than 2-5 million people with ease, so why aren't we taking them more seriously? They are crying out for attention.

One thing I wish some in the intelligence or diplomatic services would explore is whether are links between the North Koreans and Saddam, and if there was any discussion of their steadily increasing brinkmanship just as W. was planning to destroy Iraq.... Also, don't forget that North Korea sent missiles to Yemen, so the possibility of contacts with middle Eastern nations, as well as with Al Qaeda, isn't that farfetched!

FT, Thus the accuracy of the term "Axis of Evil."

That will probably be dismissed as bombast and brinkmanship since NK would be anihilated if such a strike were even attempted. Their technology is almost certainly not adequate to deliver a debilitating first strike.

Isn't it true that they could only effectively threaten the immediate region (i.e. South Korea) and not the USA (or even Japan, Russia or China since the retaliatory consequences would be equally severe either from Russia or China directly, or from the USA as an ally of Japan.

The mid and long-term solution to both the NK and Iraq threats is negotiation and containment, along with progress on drying up the source of non-state terrorism which is primarily poverty.

Circumstantial to only those whose distaste for the current Administration prevents them from realizing that Iraq poses a threat no less worse than the threat we faced prior to 9/11.

Who says they didn't? Must Powell reveal EVERYTHING? Of course not.

Convict him how? Where? In some world court? Yeah, that would go over well, wouldn't it? Considering there'd be a bunch of folks demanding some due process for this monster, or claiming the trial was nothing but a show for the U.S.

Are you this naive to think inspectors will find these--better yet, that Saddam would LET them be found?

\"It is obvious Saddam Hussein poses a threat, and that time has run out for him,\" said Senator Corzine of New Jersey Thursday afternoon, who continued, \"The evidence is clear, the evidence is compelling...the mobile units are obviously being kept away from public knowledge, and these are but one example of his repeated material breeches of UN resolutions.\"

How? Oh, wait, because he's a black Republican in a Republican Administration. Can't be authentic there, can he?

General Powell is so very right about one important fact: The UN is in danger of becoming irrelevant. As Senator Joe Biden of Delaware remarked, \"With the evidence Secretary Powell presented, no further discussions on the part of the United Nations are necessary. They have more than once addressed the issue of Saddam Hussein, and it is clear he has repeatedly thumbed his nose at them. The United Nations now must stand behind its resolutions and its promises of action. If it does not, I fear that this great institution will be impotent to act on anything else and will have become irrelevant on the world stage.\"

God forbid he get realistic and show people just how much--or how little--of a chemical can harm people.

As has been mentioned before by this Administration, if a country harbors terrorists, they're fair game for American retaliation. To this I say, \"Finally!\" If we must go marching through one country after another to eliminate those who are intent on destroying us, so be it. Our complacency led to 9/11. Let us not permit this again.

Citing the virulently anti-Republican New York Times is a waste of time. They supported the very cause of Saddam's rise to threatening power. Moreover, they supported the Clinton Administration's military strikes against Iraq in 1998 (as well as prior ones), they supported military intervention against Milosevic. They have a history of biased inconsistency.

Senator Diane Feinstein Wednesday morning: "Secretary Powell's presentation was both compelling and convincing. I must say, my position has shifted...I'm afraid that giving more time to inspectors is pointless. The inspectors cannot succeed and have therefore become useless."

Unlike many right-wing, anti-Clinton fools, who never seemed to support him when he did anything militarily, I commend Feinstein, Corzine, and many others on the left for realizing what is now clear: Hussein poses a threat. For this reason, as well as others, he must be removed, and soon.

Truth be told, I wanted a greater quantum of proof than Powell provided as well, but ... deep conservative toke, e-x-h-a-l-e ... the importance of ousting this guy and his cohorts entirely justifies full scale military action to do so.

I saw Colin Powell's presentation yesterday, and I thought most of it was very compelling. Of course, I don't have access to the documents, etc. that backs up his claims. But even if only 10% of what Powell says is true, then the inspections are a complete waste of time, and the inspectors should get out immediately for their safety.

I don't know that war is the answer here, but I don't know if peace is the answer either, unfortunately.

[ February 06, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

There were some interesting new items revealed yesterday. However, there did not seem to be a lot of weight to the total package. A lot of information that had been disclosed previously. Some "diagrams" of what the mobile bio labs would look like, but no documentation of them actually existing. I did appreciate the intercepts, but wonder how you authenticate who was actually speaking.

The question keeps coming back to the same thing over and over. Why are we hell-bent on entering a conflict that will lead to a long-term commitment on our part in the Middle East. There was some interesting analysis today about the need to not just dethrone Iraq, but stick around long enough to ensure the successful rebuilding of the country. To leave the country after a full-scale conflict without ensuring its stability and economic viability would be almost worse than leaving Sadaam in power.

So, we are not just signing on to dethrone the man. We are signing on for years of occupation and billions in aid for putting the country back together. (The comparison has been made to the years US troops spent in Europe and Japan after WWII.) All thanks to the administration's determination to make Iraq enemy #1, while there are a number of other places/groups that should also be on the worry list.

And, frankly, how can a society that was completely traumatized by four airplanes destroying 3000 lives be comfortable sending millions of pounds of ordinance to bomb the citizenry of Iraq. I am not saying we are behaving like terrorists, but we will be terrorizing the citizens of that country.

From this editorial in today's Phila. Daily News:

Again, why if the U.S. has the info on where these mobile units are will we not turn it over to the inspectors? Because either we don't have real proof (diagrams and such are nice, as are fuzzy photos, but they prove nothing) OR we want any pretense to fight this war. As I said before in other threads, Bush's reasoning on why to fight this war has steadily shifted, primarily because the plans were drawn up well before he took office, and he's looked for any reason to fight it. 9/11 has provided that.

According to a recent poll, 40% of Americans believe that at least one of the 9/11 terrorists was Iraqi, even though not one was. Also, Saddam's secular power madness, and Osama's religious fanaticism are incompatible. There are much greater threats than Saddam. That said, I think Bush is going to declare war very soon, according to pre-drawn up plans, and most of the major nations in the world, except Germany, will either go along with them or not speak out. China and Russia may remain silent, while France will probably accede very soon.

I also don't think the administration really cares about a post-war Iraq except in so far as the oil wells and infrastructure are concerned. While Afghanistan continues to be a resource-starved, rubble-strewn battle zone even within 50 miles of its capital, the U.S. government has made sure that previous plans to build a pipeline are going ahead. That will be a key priority in Iraq. I also think a major military base there is in the works, which will allow the U.S. to pull out of Saudi Arabia, since the Iraqi facility would be more central to many of the problem states there while also not sitting on land sacred to Muslims....

And, frankly, how can a society that was completely traumatized by four airplanes destroying 3000 lives be comfortable sending millions of pounds of ordinance to bomb the citizenry of Iraq. I am not saying we are behaving like terrorists, but we will be terrorizing the citizens of that country.

At the risk of sounding snide, I really don't think many Americans have any sense of what the damage to Iraq and its people will be--nor do they care. I think the main concern is the lives of the American soldiers. Our myopia frightens me, but you know, there's nothing I can do about it. Articles, shows, photos, you name it, don't seem to sway most people. If they hear something repeated enough times by the White House and its spokespeople, especially this president with his Dadaist syntax, they believe it. So attacking a nation of 22 million people has been reduced to a clean, swift replay of 1991, which of course will go exactly according to plans, and if some Iraqis die (as if we'll know, given how the military manages war zones these days), so be it. Look, if Saddam invaded Kuwait again or made threatening moves against us, or were known to have harbored or assisted bin Laden, or sold this easily hidden, but massive stash of WMD to Al Qaeda, etc., I'd say we should take him out. TAKE HIM OUT. But the point of this war is not simply to take him out. It's to occupy that country and its oilfields, change the regime there, and thus dominate the region for years to come. G-d help all of us when we really stir up the crackpot Islamic fanatics...well, maybe someone in the administration will take Henry Stimson's lead, and not bomb any of Iraq's Islamic Holy sites, like the graves of the prophets in Najaf (where the grave of Adam is located), Samarra, Basra, etc.

[ February 06, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

For the record, Iraq has 2,339 km (about 1450 miles) of standard gauge (1.435-m gauge) railway. "Standard gauge" means that the rails are spaced four feet, eight and one-half inches, or fifty-six and one-half inches, apart, the same as in the US.

Butch? Nah. I have a vial that looks just that. It doesn't contain anything. It's as dangerous as the one Powell held up.

What's up with the modified Mirages, though? That requires some explaining, I think.

Letterman's "U.S. arguments and Iraqi counter-arguments":

USA: "Satellite photos showing factories producing vast quantities of anthrax."
Iraq: "Not true. We happen to be the world's leading producer of Gold Bond medicated powder."

USA: "The United States should eliminate Saddam Hussein from Iraq."
Iraq: "Trista should eliminate that no-good Ryan from 'The Bachelorette.'"

USA: "Saddam Hussein was elected through a crooked voting process."
Iraq: "Look who's talking."

USA: "Iraq has repeatedly ignored the U.N. Resolutions."
Iraq: "Yeah, we've missed a lot of messages due to trouble with voice mail."

USA: "More inspections are just a waste of time."
Iraq: "Yes. Let's just forget the whole thing."

USA: "Iraq harbors a deadly terrorist network."
Iraq: "United States harbors the deadly Fox network."

USA: "We have incriminating satellite photos of Iraqi weapons."
Iraq: "We have incriminating satellite photos of the Bush daughters on spring break"

Saw GWB with Powell yesterday--Bush should avoid appearing with Powell. There is a stature gap that can't even be measured. At times like this when war is imminent, a seriousness is necessary. Powell has gravitas, the ability to speak in fully thoughtout sentences, and a visage of intelligence. Bush has yet to master any of those things and when compared with Powell, he truly come across as a yokel cowboy.

~Adam

But W. WANTS to come across as a "yokel cowboy" so most Americans will forget he was born in Connecticut as the eldest scion to several of America's most socially and politically prominent families, educated at Phillips Andover, Yale College and Harvard Business School, and given every opportunity under the sun, even when he failed miserably and repeatedly in his business careers. Most "yokel cowboys" don't have the same kinds of lifelong platinum parachutes and handouts (whether earned or not) that Bush has had. He is to the manor, if not the manner, born.

BTW, the British report Powell cited in his UN speech the other day has now been scrutinized and found VERY wanting. It's a cut-and-paste job, replete with plagiarism, from magazines, academic articles, and online reports. That is, NOT original, hard-won intelligence.

[ February 07, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Fanto -- very nice point about the irony of W growing up with every privilege imaginable, but trying to portray the yokel image. I had not thought about that before.

In addition to the British report questions raised in the past couple of days, CNN reporters went to some of the Iraqi sites shown/quited by Secretary Powell on Wednesday. They discovered that some of them look like they have been deserted for months. Some of them had a bunch of discarded crap strewn all through the site. Now, Iraq may have been able to doctor it up a little, but these visits happened within 48 hours of the UN speech. Are the Iraqis really capable of transforming these sites that quickly? I am not sure.

with regards to GWB, it's not only a matter of privilege where there are more windows of opportunity open for one to succeed. That would be one thing where, your family connections opens doors and then you succeed.

with GWB, his family connections have alowed him to get into Yale despite his horrible grades at Andover and then into Harv. Biz despite his terrible grades at Yale. That's not "privilege" that's just a free pass.

from ung:

That's not "privilege" that's just a free pass

It's also the only form of affirmative action GWB endorses and he isn't even aware that that's what it is.

~Adam

Yes, and BECAUSE it was a free pass (and no form of affirmaticve action), WE now are paying for the fact that he should never have been admitted to ANY business school, not to mention Harvard.

- - - - -

"OK, Mr. President, we have confirmed that you spelled 'potato' correctly. Although you stumbled a few times, you did, in fact, finalize on all the correct letters - and you didn't add the 'e' that time. Good!

Now can you name five Arab-World capitals?"

William Raspberry has a great column in today's Post - basically stating he may not buy the cause for war, but is even more of a Powell fan.

A Case for Powell, but Not War

Something not likely to enhance Powell's credibility: Full article can be found at: Ex-Aide: Powell Misled Americans

The linked article above, and the benefit of hindsight, show that fantomas and others on this thread were spot on in seeing through the current Administration's weak case for war.

Well, it's sad to say, but the truth was apparent--sad and very, very unfortunate, for all those dead and innocent Iraqis, the aide workers, the journalists, the UN mission, and our soldiers, who continue to suffer attacks. Sad also because it has charged up Al Qaeda far more even than the Afghan War.

Let's not EVER forget, they wrought scenes of horror upon us--WTC, Pentagon, that plane in the Pennsylvania field--without ever needing recourse to a WMD. They didn't care if they died--it was all for the greater glory of their warped cause. We do care. This is not an equal or comforting equation.